America First: Roosevelt vs. Lindbergh in the Shadow of War

by H.W. Brands

Bestselling historian and Pulitzer Prize finalist H. W. Brands narrates the fierce debate over America's role in the world in the runup to World War II through its two most important President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who advocated intervention, and his isolationist nemesis, aviator and popular hero Charles Lindbergh.Hitler's invasion of Poland in September 1939 launched a momentous period of decision-making for the United States. With fascism rampant abroad, should America take responsibility for its defeat?For popular hero Charles Lindbergh, saying no to another world war only twenty years after the first was the obvious answer. Lindbergh had become famous and adored around the world after his historic first flight over the Atlantic in 1927. In the years since, he had emerged as a vocal critic of American involvement overseas, rallying Americans toward isolationism as the nominal head of the America First Committee. As Hitler advanced across Europe and threatened the British Isles, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt struggled to turn the tide of public opinion. With great effort, political shrewdness and outright deception—aided by secret British disinformation efforts in America—FDR readied the country for war. He pushed the US onto the world stage where it has stayed ever since.In this gripping narrative, H.W. Brands sheds light on a crucial tipping point in American history and depicts the making of a legendary president.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, American History, World War II, Presidents, Biography

480 pages, Paperback

First published September 24, 2024

About the author

H.W. Brands is an acclaimed American historian and author of over thirty books on U.S. history, including Pulitzer Prize finalists The First American and Traitor to His Class. He holds the Jack S. Blanton Sr. Chair in History at the University of Texas at Austin, where he earned his PhD. Originally trained in mathematics, Brands turned to history as a way to pursue his passion for writing. His biographical works on figures like Franklin, Jackson, Grant, and both Roosevelts have earned critical and popular praise for their readability and depth. Raised in Oregon and educated at Stanford, Reed College, and Portland State, he began his teaching career in high schools before entering academia. He later taught at Texas A&M and Vanderbilt before returning to UT Austin. Brands challenges conventional reverence for the Founding Fathers, advocating for a more progressive and evolving view of American democracy. In addition to academic works, his commentary has featured in major documentaries. His books, published internationally and translated into multiple languages, examine U.S. political, economic, and cultural development with compelling narrative force. Beyond academia, he is a public intellectual contributing to national conversations on history and governance.

Reviews

[Brendan (History Nerds United) · Rating 5 out of 5]

H.W. Brands is one of my favorite authors. I've read many of his books and I was primed to enjoy his newest, America First. The setup is simple. FDR wanted to move America towards fighting Hitler. Charles Lindbergh, American hero, felt the U.S. had no business intervening in World War II after the devastation of World War I. This is the story of a consummate master politician versus a man who seemingly had no fear.

The book writes itself. And even better, Brands knows this book is already written for him. What I mean by that is Brands litters this book with direct quotes (my favorite!) from FDR, Lindbergh, and various other people. I love it when a historian lets people speak for themselves while the author guides the reader by the hand. I don't want to hear what an author thinks about what Lindbergh thinks. I want to hear what Lindbergh said. I want to know the context. And then I want to make up my mind from there. Additionally, Brands stays laser focused. Yes, Churchill and other famous people pop into the narrative, but they serve their purpose and then exit. This book is about the two antagonists and it stays that way.

Brands' narrative is exceptional. I am sure of this because I am not terribly fond of FDR or Lindbergh and yet I was still riveted from page 1. This is not to say either is painted as a saint. FDR is still the political (conniving?) animal who won the presidency four times. Lindbergh is still a determined man who is painfully naive. The book made me find a new understanding with both of them amidst the greater discussion of American involvement in World War II. Brands presents them as they were in their own words. They both deserve that either for good or bad.

(This book was provided as an advance copy by Netgalley and Doubleday Books.)

[Jill H. · Rating 4 out of 5]

The year 1939 was one of horror in Europe as the Nazis were overrunning the landscape and Britain and France had declared war against Germany. The United States had long been an ally of Britain and Churchill was begging Presided Franklin Roosevelt for help. He was hoping that the US would join the war effort but the US public opinion was not in favor of any involvement in European affairs.

Onto the stage steps Charles Lindbergh, the "Lone Eagle" and popular hero for his flight across the Atlantic several years earlier. He had gone to Nazi Germany and England to study their air power capability and reported that the Nazis were very much in the forefront of aviation.

The America First organization of non-interventionists was picking up support and Lindbergh became their spokesperson. His radio and personal appearance speeches drew more people into the organization as he attacked Roosevelt as a war monger. Lindbergh was totally naive where politics were concerned and and quickly made an enemy of the President.

This book follows Roosevelt and Lindbergh through the two years before the declaration of war due to Pearl Harbor and it is detailed, unbiased, and very well written. There was a little too much taken from Lindbergh's own diary which may not have been necessary but otherwise it is a book I would recommend.

[Faith · Rating 5 out of 5]

During the years leading up to the start of WWII and America’s entrance, there was an active America First movement that opposed the war, and more particularly, any US participation. Due to his fame as an aviator, Charles Lindbergh became a prominent and influential spokesman. In the meantime, President Franklin Roosevelt was trying to buy time to build up America’s military in preparation for the war that he felt was inevitable.

This book describes the pressures on Roosevelt, including the frequent entreaties from Winston Churchill (who became Prime Minister after England’s appeasement attempt was a colossal failure), England’s propaganda campaign in the US and the constant opposition of the America Firsters. The book ends with the attack on Pearl Harbor. In contrast, the proponents of America First were understandably reluctant to engage in another war so soon after the end of WWI. However, Lindbergh was a controversial figure who was suspected of being a Nazi sympathizer. He comes across as being rigid, provincial, humorless, racist and antisemitic. His protests about entering into a conflict with people who shared his racial identity certainly put him in line with Nazi ideology. When he gave a speech that, in part, blamed Jews for pushing America into the war (with the usual tropes about Jews running the movie and news businesses), it was a step too far and led to a lot of criticism.

The book often lets the two men speak for themselves and includes lengthy quotes from the speeches and writings of both Roosevelt and Lindbergh, so you can get a very clear picture of what they were thinking and believing at the time. It was interesting to see how and why decisions were made. The book was well written and balanced. I’ve read several other books by this author and they have all been good.

[Michael Schramm · Rating 4 out of 5]

My first book by historian H. W. Brands, a writer I look forward to reading more titles by. What the author is to be credited for here is allowing the dramatis personae to largely speak for themselves, (there are voluminous passages of direct quotes) providing the reader with a visceral debate between President Franklin Roosevelt and aviation hero Charles Lindbergh, even if the two never debated in person.

I might have awarded the book 5 stars were it not for the epilogue where Brands becomes uncomfortably polemical and politically pointed, drawing comparisons between the events of 1939-1941 to the current day geopolitical arena—and positing rather specious conclusions in my eyes. An otherwise better than average and at times quite riveting read and I look forward to Brands’ “Dreams of El Dorado”.

[Erin · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 Stars!

What's old is new again.

America First is a brand that Trump has taken as his own, but it's not. Way back in the 1930s, while Hitler invaded several European countries a band of wealthy white men started The America First Committee. The committee was committed to keeping the U.S. out of war. This book gives us the prospective of a man on each side.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the only U.S. president to serve 4 terms. He built the social safety net known as the New Deal, which both Republicans and Democrats have spent the last 5 decades trying to dismantle. He knew that the states would need to get involved in the war because if Hitler wasn't stopped Roosevelt believed German would become a threat to the U.S.

Charles Lindbergh may be best known today for his infant son's kidnapping and murder but in his time he was one of the most famous men in America. His claim to fame was flying over the Atlantic Ocean solo. Lindbergh was a handsome very Aryan looking man. Lindbergh wouldn't have considered himself racist and antisemitic but he was. Even if you were to give Lindbergh the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't antisemitic. He definitely gave safe harbor to Nazi propaganda. He stated in a speech that "The Jews" were dangerous to the United States and that they had too much power over entertainment, press, and the government. He felt that the true villains of WW2 was "The Jews". Lindbergh way back in the 1930s longed for a simpler time. He hated the rise of cities and the new freedoms that were opening up for more and more Americans... he wanted America to go back in time...he wanted to Make America Great Again.

The more American history I read the more I feel like we are trapped in a time warp. History just continues to repeat in the worst ways. The U.S is a selfish people. We don't tend to care about other countries unless we benefit in some way. I've several books on the lead up to the Great Depression and WW2 and the politics of those times feel very relevant.

It is interesting to read about a time when the states were viewed as positive as the good guys,and not as the bullies and bad guys we are today.

I really enjoyed this book. It was quick read. You don't need to be a history reader to enjoy this, it's a book that even casual nonfiction readers will enjoy.

I obviously highly recommend this book and I'm definitely adding more H.W. Brands books to my tbr.

[AndyL · Rating 2 out of 5]

Disappointing.  As other reviewers have explained, this is an exploration of the isolationist- interventionist-debate prior to the US's entry into WWII. It is told primarily through the lens of Charles Lindbergh, famed aviator and international hero for his solo transatlantic flight and leader of the isolationist America First Committee, and FDR. 

While I appreciate historians allowing historical figures to make their points in their own words, the author relies much too heavily on lengthy, verbatim regurgitations from Lindbergh's and Roosevelt's speeches and journals.  Rarely, if ever, does the author provide any analysis, critique or even deeper context into the speakers' words.  In a way, I found the author at times to be more stenographer than historian.   

The lack of such analysis led me to feel that the author was too sympathetic to Lindbergh (which was likely not the author's intent).  He spent extensive time on the enthusiasm Lindbergh unsurprisingly generated from his supporters, the crowd sizes at his speeches and the various meetings he held with various Congressmen in the isolationist camp while downplaying and failing to explore in any great detail Lindbergh's flirtation with, if not sympathy with, Nazis and antisemitism. 

The same holds true of others who make quick appearances in the book, like, for instance, Henry Ford, George Sylvester and Avery Brundage  With respect to Ford, the author spends as much time discussing a plane ride that Lindbergh gave Ford as does about Ford's virulent antisemitism, which did not seem to bother Lindbergh. Similar is his treatment of Viereck, a German-American writer who worked on behalf of Nazi Germany. The author simply quotes Viereck as stating (ridiculously) that antisemitism was not intrinsic to Nazism, but leaves it at that, without any further comment.  And the author mentions that Brundage was an organizer of Lindbergh's speech on behalf of an organization called Citizens Committee to Keep America Out of War but fails to discuss Brundage's antisemitism.  Similarly, the author quotes numerous Lindbergh speeches prior to his infamous and blatantly antisemitic Des Moines speech in which Lindbergh references "interests" looking to drag America into war but fails to consider who Lindbergh was referring to and, thus, whether these references to "interests" had antisemitic connotations. 

Finally, the author provides very little context of what was actually going on in the world at the time that Lindbergh was arguing that the US was unprepared for war and had no real stake in it.  He briefly mentions the Nazi conquests of Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland and then France and Belgium in brief paragraphs, without discussing the absolute horrors that the people in these countries suffered after the Nazis gained control, the laws that were passed and the subsequent arrests, roundups, deportations and killings. Of course, the horrors of Hitler and the Nazis are well known, have been well covered elsewhere and aren't the main topic of this book and I did not expect it to be covered here in any great detail.  But the failure to provide much of any context of what was going on while Lindbergh was urging isolationism made Lindbergh's arguments for why the US should stay out of the war more understandable than they otherwise would have been if the context was provided.  The fact that the US may or may not have been safe from an actual foreign invasion -- Lindbergh's main argument for his isolationist views -- was not the full story.

[Maria Almaguer · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a much more comprehensive book about President Roosevelt's and Charles Lindbergh's philosophical differences on American involvement in World War II than Awakening the Spirit of America by Paul M. Sparrow, both in breadth as well as depth. A readable account of the ever-present controversy of United States involvement in foreign affairs. I especially appreciated the obvious fact that technology and advancement had drawn people so much closer in the world, explaining how the United States was no longer a safe island separated by oceans.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

If your knowledge of the Lindbergh vs. Roosevelt feud over American involvement overseas comes from Philip Roth's speculative fiction novel The Plot Against America, you are in for a surprise. The strength of Brands's account is that it is entirely devoid of presentism, and he helps us see the events of roughly 1938-1941 as they would have been perceived by Americans as they were happening. It's very easy to understand why a nation that had gone through the first world war would be largely opposed to meddling in European affairs again. And Lindbergh was certainly right about one thing - Roosevelt was being disingenous when he said he was going to keep us out of the conflict. Roosevelt knew it would take time to win the American people over, and on Dec. 7, 1941 he finally got some big help from Japan.

I'm very certain that Brands will get some criticism for going soft on Lindbergh, who emerges as a sympathetic, if naive character. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if the criticism will be merited, but I do think that Brands didn't address Lindbergh's or the movement's antisemitism sufficiently, and the accusations of German influence over the America First movement are alluded to but not addressed. I don't think that Brands is saying the America Firsters were right, but for better or worse Brands is at minimum trying to lift the stain that hangs over the movement by helping us understand why they felt the way they did.

The discussion provoked by this book will be interesting. I'm looking forward to reading reviews, particulary those by historians. Thanks to NetGalley and Doubleday for providing a copy for early review.

[José · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had always been curious to know the details of Lindy’s descent into infamy as a result of his involvement in the America First movement and this book answers the mail on that front. Lindbergh was too logical and naive for his own good and paid the price. Brands seems to pump the brakes a bit too much on Lindy’s anti-Semitism and attempts to boil down the controversy to a single Des Moines speech. However, it’s clear from Lindbergh’s association with Ford (a rabid anti-Semite who funded printing of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion) and some of his diary entries that he was more than willing to paint American Jews as somehow the other and with an agenda that was intrinsically un-American. Brands paints FDR to be the consummate schemer who knew instinctively that he had to walk a fine line between preparing us for war and avoiding alienating a public opinion that wanted no part of war (until Pearl Harbor changed everything). I give this book 3 stars because, for the most part, it’s an edited version of Lindy’s diary and excerpts from the speeches, letters, and press conferences of the protagonists (with Churchill playing a strong supporting role). I know history books are meant to rely heavily on source material, but this book often read like nothing more than a glorified transcription. Therefore, it was a bit of a slow read for me.

[Edward]

“Earlier this year, I published a long article on the career of famed aviator Charles Lindbergh and his America First campaign, a political movement that had similarly sought to block our involvement in the war. In that work, I’d drawn very heavily upon an excellent 2024 book of that title by historian H.W. Brands, whose coverage focused entirely upon that Roosevelt-Lindbergh political duel of the early 1940s.”
-Ron Unz, “President Franklin Roosevelt, the Great Depression and the New Deal” (July 8, 2025)

[Ted Hunt · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an engaging examination of the tension between the "interventionist" and "isolationist" elements in American society leading up to the nation's entry into World War II. The debate, at least in this book, is manifested primarily though the words and actions of President Roosevelt and Charles Lindbergh. The book reminded me of Brand's book about the Korean War, "The General vs. the President," which looks at that conflict through the tension between MacArthur and Truman. Like that book, "America First" is sort of a dual biography, as Brands examines the careers of the two chief protagonists and then puts their words under examination as the world heads into the Second World War. As I was reading the book I got the impression that the author was more sympathetic to Lindbergh and his attempts to keep the nation out of the world conflict. (In previous books I got the impression that Brands is not a big fan of FDR.). He spends a lot more time dissecting Lindbergh's speeches, although to the author's credit, he does make clear that his 1941 speech in Des Moines contained serious overtones of anti-Semitism that did serious damage to Lindbergh's reputation. It was interesting to note, while I was reading the book, how similar the debate in the early 1940s's was to the current debate over the direction of American foreign policy. The book ends with a statement that the Biden Administration had brought the nation back to its traditional postwar foreign policy positions and goals, but here we are again in the era of Trump II, which the U.S. seemingly taking steps to return to a more isolationist and unilateral approach to foreign affairs. The outcome of the current debate is unknowable at this point, but as this book shows, it is a debate that has been going on for generations.

[Bruce Katz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Review to come

[Ted · Rating 3 out of 5]

Never seemed to take off as a text. Lindbergh was right about everything of course.

[Dennis McCrea · Rating 5 out of 5]

Through extensive use of Lindbergh’s diary notations and citations from his many antiwar, America First speeches, I was surprised about how well spoken Lindbergh was. This did not fit my former vision of him being a reluctant and shy national hero.

Why didn’t politicians of the day have the courage to speak up about their anti-war sentiments as Lindbergh? Of the many Capital Hill, state and local politicians who were opposed to the United States’ entry into the war, I had to keep asking myself why they allowed a non-politician such as Lindbergh to be their mouthpiece. Truly surprising.

I couldn’t help but become biased about Lindbergh when I took a few moments in the middle of my read to refresh myself on Lindbergh’s biography. I had not read a Lindbergh biography since the mid-70’s when I was in middle and high school. I knew that he and his wife Anne were the parents together of six kids, including their first that was kidnapped and murdered. I was unpleasantly surprised to discover that Lindbergh fathered “at least” seven other children with three other German women and kept this hidden from his wife. Yes, he may have been a legitimate and strong anti-war voice prior to WWII but his moral standing lost a lot of legitimacy in my mind.

Author at the end is a modern day Trump and Trumpism apologist. It came through in his closing remarks. The idea sickened me as this is not the first book I have read by the author and I had held him up with great esteem. Not so much now.

[Colleen]

DNFing halfway through. Incredibly dry history that relies heavily on Lindbergh’s journals. If I’d wanted to read the source material, I would have read the source material. I want analysis and comparisons with modern times. You can just barely see the threads but I’d hoped they would have been written in caps and highlighted (metaphorically speaking).

[Mary's Bookshelf · Rating 5 out of 5]

Probably just a little under five stars. The excellent narration by Mark Bramhall distinguishes between the main characters with such clarity that I never lost track of which of the main characters he was voicing.

The subject of the book is timely in a way that is very uncomfortable. The current America First platform espoused by Trump is not the same as the one of the 1930's, but it certainly echoes it.

Charles Lindbergh, a national hero who was largely uncomfortable with the pressures of public life, found himself as the face of the America First movement that was growing in the late 30's as war came to Europe. He had visited both Germany and England and had deep opinions about both countries. He did not admire Hitler or agree with most of his policies, but he did see that German engineering and preparations for war were advanced. He did not think that England was prepared for war and believed that they were likely to lose in a conflict with Germany. He hoped to influence Americans to oppose getting sucked into a war that did not directly involve America.

President Roosevelt had very different opinions and was doing all that he could to supply and support Britain. He and Churchill had developed a strong relationship. Roosevelt did not see how America could hope to stay out of the war and maintain its position in the world.

These opposing views were exacerbated because neither man trusted the intentions of the other. Lindbergh saw Roosevelt as a devious politician who was hiding his true intentions from the American people.

H.W. Brands uses the speeches, diaries, and letters of both men to tell a story of tension and mistrust. Lindbergh was not a politician and he misplayed his hand finally by expressing anti-Semitic sentiments in a national radio speech in September 1941. His reputation was severely damaged. But in the long run it did not matter because two months later the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Whether the United States would enter the war was now decided.

I did not know much about the America First movement before the war. It was not as black and white a question as Americans later came to view it. Lindbergh had some keen observations that had merit at the time. But his distrust of Roosevelt and of people with different views blinded him to the growing evil in Germany.

If you are interested in the intricacies of American history, you may enjoy this. Highly recommended

[Dan Sasi · Rating 5 out of 5]

HW Brands has written a fair, even handed account of the extremely important events leading up to the US entrance into the Second World War. Brands offers a compelling examination of the intense debate over America’s role in World War II, focusing on the contrasting perspectives of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and aviator Charles Lindbergh, with a heavy reliance on primary diary accounts.

Until reading this book, I had forgotten that Lindbergh was one of the most famous people in the world during that time. Lindbergh’s enormous media clout made him the one figure who could go toe-to-toe with one of America’s most powerful presidents in the arena of public opinion.

The battle over American involvement in World War II constituted one of the most momentous political turning points in our country’s modern history, and for more than 80 years this story has been obfuscated by a thick layer of congealed propaganda, with the true facts only very rarely if ever reaching any substantial mainstream audience.

America First, the huge antiwar organization that Lindbergh helped lead, lost that political battle and as a consequence for more than three generations it has been heavily condemned and even demonized in our media descriptions of that era, a fate extended to many of its leaders, Lindbergh foremost among them. This explains why the individual who probably ranked as America’s greatest national hero of the twentieth century was relegated to just a few sentences in an introductory history textbooks. And when he is mentioned today, it often accompanies a “Nazi sympathizer” or “fascist” label.

World war 2 has become the founding myth of the modern American global empire. It is used as justification by our foreign policy “professionals” every time they want to enter a new conflict, with us representing Churchill and our opponent representing Hitler. It is remarkable that each of Sadam, Putin, Assad, Noriega, Fidel Castro, Donald Trump etc are all Hitler. Diplomacy is reserved for those that want to be remembered in the history books las Neville Chamberlain is remembered in Munich. Diplomacy now equals appeasement and nobody wants to be an appeaser. And if you support an America First foreign policy you are a Nazi (substitute Nazi for whomever our adversary of the day is) sympathizer.

I have much respect for Brands, a mainstream popular historian and his writing of what is a truly even handed, fair and objective account of this crucial period in American history.

[Nick · Rating 3 out of 5]

Isolationism vs. interventionism debate using extensive passages in Lindbergh's and FDR's own words. I have to admit that I found many of the verbatim passages tedious so I suppose it's good that I enjoy writers of popular history and never tried to become a primary-source reading historian myself.

Lindbergh comes off as a techno-naif - an engineering type who thinks his grasp of one field validates his opinions in every other field, especially bogus race science. Sounds very familiar to an observer of the 2020s scene. FDR comes off as the prevaricating manipulator, which he was, but for the good guys. Brands falls pretty close to the trap of saying Japan was the victim of American machinations. He also ignores the interesting situation of the left - leftists went from Spanish Civil War era so-called premature anti-fascism to - if they toed the line - a pro-German stance during the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. He seems to regard the Soviet role in the war as sucking up valuable war material and delivering nothing but an iron curtain. I also found Brands's Donald the Dove/Biden the Interventionist characterizations in the epilogue a little too glib. American hegemony is looking better and better in the 2020s, and abandoning it or losing it some other way will not fulfill an isolationist fantasy, whether it originates on the left or right.

Worth reading if you're interested in the journey from isolationism to internationalism, but Lynne Olson's book on the subject was superior in my opinion.

The literature on isolationism vs. internationalism as a whole seems to suffer from lack of mention of things like the work of Gen. George C. Marshall, implementation and extension of the draft, the Two-Ocean Navy Act of 1940 (which allocated for the first eight Essex-class carriers, numerous battleships, cruisers, destroyers, and submarines, and thousands of aircraft) and the beginnings of the Liberty Ship program pre-Pearl Harbor. For a nation that was historically leery of large peacetime services and foreign entanglements and was now acting as the Arsenal of Democracy, the U.S. was in better shape than is commonly recognized. Roosevelt, ever the political animal, exemplifies the quandary faced by democracies in times of war.

[Jon-Erik · Rating 3 out of 5]

Brands bends over backwards to paint a sympathetic picture of Lindbergh, including thorough doses of FDR-skepticism. In case there was any doubt, in the conclusion, he claims Lindbergh was right about almost everything. Even on the terms of what is documented in this book, that is easily refuted.

Lindbergh repeatedly denied that an amphibious invasion of Europe was possible and this was the kingpin of his entire argument, if we take it in good faith. He was wrong that it would be a war to save imperialism, when after the war France and England decolonized. The things he was right about—for example, that involvement in World War II would put the US permanently in Europe—were already the case, which is why the discussion of its involvement was happening.

Lindbergh is a classic case of Dunning Kruger, as the popular name goes. He was an expert on airplanes, had tasted fame and adulation, and so people were eager to listen. But he over-estimated the effect of air power in the coming war, which was hard to do, since it was a war that hinged to a large extent on air power and combined arms.

He used his apparent earnestness as a sword and shield too. He seems incredibly socially awkward and it's difficult to tell if this was an act or a result of events in his life. Whatever the case, it's completely dishonest to blame Roosevelt for Hitler and Japan's conquests of Europe and Asia. War was coming because of them. When Japan attacked the US, of course, he claimed we made them do it. Perhaps Pearl Harbor shouldn't have worn that dress, or, put differently, perhaps we should have continued to supply Japan's genocidal conquests in Asia with oil so as not to provoke them. That is submission and no amount of defense build-up at home can make up for that.

As for the antisemitism? It doesn't matter if some of his best friends were Jews or whatever. He was a vector for the antisemitic bile of the Nazi Reich. Yes, Jews did not like Hitler, but we did not enter the war for the Jews nor did the Jews have the power to bring that about and to suggest so itself is antisemitic. Furthermore, *of course* the British wanted us in the war. That someone wants us in or out isn't a conspiracy.

Even given the heavy thumb Brands places on the scales, Lindbergh comes across as an arrogant prick who got so far out of his lane he just became a useful idiot for Hitler

[Roberta · Rating 3 out of 5]

Too much reliance on very long quotes and speeches. Much prefer a historian’s summary and analysis rather than word-for-word primary sources as it slows down the narrative. After a few chapters, I ended up skimming these and only reading Brand’s writing.

[Aly · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is very important for understanding today’s current events. Especially in relation to what is currently happening with Ukraine and our position on helping them fight their war.
H. W. Brands is a good historian but his books can be pretty dry and hard to get through even with interesting subject matter. At least for me that is. That’s why I took off two stars.
He seems to try to stay neutral on this subject of Roosevelt vs. Lindbergh, but to me, he seems to be very sympathetic towards Lindbergh. Charles was a privileged man who seemed to be given (by politicians and citizens alike) the idea that he was important enough to give speeches and rally’s not unlike the president. He was courted by them for his opinion. He reminded me of keyboard warriors of today on social media.
He seemed to really be against progress and wanted to keep things the way they were during his father’s and grandfathers generations. Sound familiar?
Roosevelt was accused over and over of being a liar by Lindbergh but only one of these two men was elected to represent the people at that time. That’s why it struck me as strange that Charles was given so much room from the press and radio stations to say what he said.
However, the president did appear to do a lot of manipulating to try to ease the American people into a warring state of mind. That being said, I can’t see how it could be avoided when Britain was at such a disadvantage and the Axis powers continued to become so powerful. How could we ever have just stood by and watched as Europe became overpowered by them? I can’t imagine what our world would be today if we had. This all being said, nothing on this subject is black and white. It is so complicated and I think this book is very timely and very important for everyone to read. I feel like a broken record because I’ve said this in every review lately for books I’ve read on our nations history. Unfortunately history is very much repeating itself and I encourage everyone to read as much as you can on the subject to be aware.

[BOOKLOVER EB · Rating 4 out of 5]

"America First,” by H. W. Brands, is an account of two charismatic Americans who were at odds with one another. Until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt used his bully pulpit to counteract the propaganda of Charles Lindbergh and his fellow isolationists. Initially, FDR insisted that the United States would not send her young men to wage war against the Axis powers. However, Lindbergh did not trust Roosevelt, whom he dismissed as a deceitful politician who said one thing but meant another. After Germany invaded Poland in 1939, and then continued its onslaught across the continent, the question arose: What should the United States do, if anything, to counteract Hitler’s acts of aggression?

Lindbergh was adamant that Americans should not become entangled in World War II. He accused England and France of being unprepared for war and predicted that they would either negotiate a peace deal or be defeated militarily. On the other hand, as a knowledgeable and skilled aviator, Lindbergh supported the idea that the U. S. should have a strong air force to ensure that no enemy would dare to attack her. In any case, he did not believe that the Nazis posed a threat to America. FDR, who disagreed, yielded to Churchill’s pleas to supply England with arms and other much-needed supplies. President Roosevelt spoke eloquently about the inadvisability of standing by while dictators conquered independent countries and brutalized innocent citizens.

This work of non-fiction is intriguing and thought-provoking. However, Brands quotes too many of FDR’s and Lindbergh’s speeches verbatim, which slows down the pace considerably. In addition, except for a few passages, the author glosses over Lindbergh’s opinions on racial purity. Brands suggests that Lindbergh was a naïve idealist who meant well, but a study of the aviator’s life shows that he admired Hitler and subscribed to some of the Führer’s odious theories about non-Aryans. Furthermore, Brands portrays FDR as a skilled politician and superb communicator who intended to involve America in WWII, and was disingenuous when he said otherwise. Readers are free to draw their own conclusions.

[Peggy Page · Rating 4 out of 5]

H.W. Brands take an interesting approach to the interventionist debates that ended with American entry into the War. With minimal explication, he uses the words of the three main debaters - Lindbergh, Roosevelt and Churchill - to paint the picture. In this way, he helps the reader experience the debate as it presented to contemporary Americans. Of course, we have the benefit of hindsight, but the approach works.

It is difficult not to admire Lindbergh and distrust FDR when presented with the argument this way (even though my own inclination is just the opposites). But FDR was the realist who had read the situation clearly, and Lindbergh was longing for a return to a simpler, less powerful America that was long gone.

In his short but powerful Epilogue, Brands reminds us that Americans embraced their newfound international power and influence. “Lindbergh saw the path ahead and found it appalling. Americans trod the path and found it irresistible.”

[Joseph · Rating 5 out of 5]

Filled with many excerpts from Lindbergh's personal diary, this book hits the mark on all levels. I especially found the parallels between WW2 and current times to be profound. Trump's MAGA campaign has many similarities to Lindbergh's America First movement. Overall, a very good perspective on current affairs. A very good read.

[Mindy Greiling · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating to read the thinking and exact words of Roosevelt and Lindbergh as they sparred over whether or not we should enter WWII. I have always liked Roosevelt better than he's portrayed here, however, and I longed for Eleanor's voice.

[Tyler Denering Young · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overly comprehensive in certain parts, especially when focusing on FDR and his actions in the lead up to WWII. Thought this was gonna be a book focused mainly on Lindbergh but after completing this one can understand why bringing in heavy-hitting FDR as both a parallel, counter, and entertainment figurehead to Lindbergh’s naive, largely unlikeable and bigoted character would help this all go down

[Stephen Ditman · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.6 stars

[Scott Callahan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book has jumped to the top of my list of favorites. Can't wait to read more from this author.

[Randall Harrison · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm a big fans of Brands so my review might not be as objective as I try to make it. This is the fourth book of his I'm read; I've enjoyed each one. This was no exception.

Brands writing style provides a lot of information in short doses. The chapters, mainly focusing on a particular event or time period, are short and easy to digest The narrative segues smoothly from one topic to another. You need not flip back through dozens of pages to remind yourself who said what or who the main actors are in that particular series of events. The man knows how to write interesting and fact-filled history, while keeping you turning the pages.

What's scary about this book is how closely our current situation mirrors that of this book. While we're not facing imminent danger from our main enemies, a foreign war in Europe and subterfuge in Asia are guiding our foreign policy today, just as they did then. What people were saying about Nazi Germany and Japan then we are now saying about Russia and the PRC. The change in administrations in January could change the status quo dramatically. Regardless, it would not be hard to imagine the new regime getting us into a war, if for no other reason than to distract attention from other policy failures. The ultimate question remains, what have we learned from our past? Will Americans stand up to their government if they try drag us into another world war without our consent?

A lot of the language Brands quotes from FDR in this book, would be just as relevant today as it was eighty years ago. The views of the President can still get us into, or out of, foreign entanglements without so much as a sneeze by the US Congress.

We sent military forces into Viet Nam, Grenada, Panama, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, et al., without a single Congressional declaration of war. The US Congress has pretty much abrogated its constitutional duty to declare war. The modern American presidency has evolved to the point where if the Presidents wants to commit troops in a foreign engagement, there is little to stop him/her from doing so. Public opinion doesn't seem to count for much any more. In my opinion, that is a greater fear now than it was during the period of this book. The President is not affected by public opinion as much as in the past.

The irony of this story is that history proved Lindbergh mostly correct. Vilified for his anti-Semitic speech in Des Moines, IA, Lindbergh damaged his credibility and reputation permanently. Few had the courage to admit subsequently how accurately he predicted what would result. The anti-Semitic language in his Des Moines speech drowned out much of what he otherwise got exactly right. Brands does a good job showing that other side of Lindbergh's views about non-intervention. Indirectly; he gives Lindbergh his due through the telling of this tale, and directly in a few brief paragraphs in the Epilogue.

What is left unsaid is how closely and accurately Lindbergh predicted what would result from American entry into a European war. The prescience of his words seem to get lost in the standard narrative that he was an anti-Semite at heart. Brands narrative seems to debunk that idea, without dismissing it as an element of the anti-war community in general and Lindbergh in particular.

This was a really good book, a great tale about a particular slice of late 20th century US history, the aftereffects of which we are still dealing with today. The parallels between the late 1930s and the 2020s are scary. Let's hope today's story doesn't end up like this one, unless that means we end up defeating our two main adversaries in the same war and come out stronger as a result.

[Simms · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5 stars, rounding up. Imagine, if you will, a small European country at war with a much larger, militarily formidable neighbor. The United States is providing that country with a large quantity of arms, ammunition, and other supplies, while some members of the Republican Party object to this on the grounds that there is no way the smaller country can possibly win in the long run, it's not our fight, and the military aid is either secretly a strategy meant to get America itself involved in the war, or foolishly a strategy that will unintentionally result in America getting involved in the war (and Americans getting killed), and conversely some Democrats argue that supplying that smaller country is the best way to avoid Americans having to fight that larger country in the long run.

Are you imagining Ukraine, fighting Russia? Or Great Britain, fighting Nazi Germany?

Certainly, the two situations are far from identical, and I wouldn't want to be Godwin's-Law'd for equating them. But it's fascinating to read about, in part because the narrative of WWII presented in American media or history classes is so compressed (or back-loaded) that it's easy to forget just how wildly imbalanced the war must have seemed and felt between the fall of France and the German invasion of the Soviet Union. Brands does a good job of putting you right into that time period and faithfully presenting the arguments of both isolationists and interventionists; for one thing, you do have to appreciate the point of view that yeah, it sure did look like Britain did not have a shot at a real victory, and backing them seemed a bit of a sucker's bet.

Lindbergh is quoted extensively (including from his diaries) and it's fascinatingly ambiguous whether you can consider him a villain. The aforementioned simplistic high-level history paints him as a Nazi sympathizer (when it mentions him at all), and his statements are weird - I think I take him at his word when he disclaims any conscious anti-Semitism, and yet his private diaries have some kooky references to Jewish control of the media - the weird kind of prejudice doublethink that a lot of people still engage in today.

Brands does a good job humanizing both Roosevelt and Lindbergh - and that means, showing that Roosevelt was not all angel, and Lindbergh was not all devil. I believe Roosevelt was right to believe that war with Germany was inevitable, and Lindbergh was, at best, misguided in thinking that the USA could sit things out, but it was interesting to note where Roosevelt was operating in bad faith and where Lindbergh or the America First crowd was operating in good faith. Brands sums the latter up nicely at the end of the book, that Lindbergh was living in the past when it would have been possible or desirable for America to stand aloof, while Roosevelt recognized, as Brands puts it, that countries get the foreign policy they can afford, and the United States could now afford to take a major role in the world, and the war -- indeed, could hardly afford not to.

Thanks to NetGalley and Doubleday for the ARC.